The Afghan aid dilemma

The Afghan aid dilemma
A view ahead of a special session of the Human Rights Council on the situation in Afghanistan, at the European headquarters of the United Nations in Geneva, Switzerland, August 24, 2021.
REUTERS/Denis Balibouse

Representatives from some 40 donor countries for Afghanistan gathered on Monday in Geneva to make a tough choice: keep humanitarian aid flowing to a country governed by violent religious zealots, or potentially watch one in three Afghans starve to death this winter.

In the end donors collectively pledged more than $1 billion, well above the $606 million the UN had asked for in order to avoid a famine that would have affected 14 million Afghans, about a third of the population, by the end of the year. But that's a drop in the bucket for the country's immense needs.

Afghanistan still faces a looming humanitarian catastrophe. Despite mostly Western donors spending upwards of $65 billion over two decades, the country remains extremely poor due to endemic corruption, mismanagement, and above all violence. The UN estimates that Afghanistan could be on the brink of near-universal poverty by mid-2022. To make matters worse, a severe drought has wiped out 40 percent of the wheat harvest, while over 3.5 million internally displaced Afghans are almost entirely dependent on foreign aid.

China and Pakistan have already provided some assistance to fill the gap, but that's nowhere near enough for the Taliban, who require legal sources of funding beyond illicit ones like opium to run the country.

Donors are prioritizing Afghanistan over other hotspots like Syria or Venezuela because Afghanistan has gained so much global attention in the wake of the Taliban takeover and US withdrawal that no Western donor can afford to ignore it, nor take the heat for the country again becoming a terrorist guesthouse, or unleashing a refugee crisis.

"As the situation unfolds, it's critical that world leaders ramp up diplomatic engagement to deliver humanitarian support to everyone who needs it, including women and girls whose rights and wellbeing are at particular risk," David Miliband, president and CEO of the International Rescue Committee, told GZERO. "Untended humanitarian need is a political tinderbox, and what starts in Afghanistan will not end there."

In Geneva, top donors kicked the can down the road. They agreed to fund the UN's work to help Afghans in need, without recognizing the Taliban or giving them any money. But sooner or later they'll have to deal with the regime, which can shut down all UN programs in the country if it doesn't get its way.

And here's where it gets tricky. If the Taliban want the straight-up cash the previous US-backed Afghan government received to fund most of its budget, Western donors insist they ensure at least basic rights for all Afghans, including women and ethnic minorities.

The Taliban, for their part, don't seem willing to give up too much, or anything at all. Indeed, Afghanistan's new rulers have so far demonstrated that they intend to govern exactly as they did the last time they were in charge.

Just in the past few days, the Taliban announced an all-male, almost all-Pashtun interim government whose interior minister has a $5 million US bounty on his head and the blood of hundreds of Taliban enemies on his hands; confirmed that women will only be allowed to study separate from men; and killed unarmed protesters and Afghans who worked for US forces.

The Taliban are not even being coy about it. As the country's economy implodes, the new central bank governor took bad optics to a whole new level by appearing in a photo presumably deep in thought about the right monetary policy to control inflation and keep the local currency afloat… with his trusty AK-47 by his side.

Will donors eventually persuade the Taliban to play ball? In an exclusive interview ahead of the aid conference, UN Secretary-General António Guterres told GZERO World that if donors engage "positively" with the Taliban, perhaps they'll gain enough leverage to sell the regime on the benefits of becoming "part of a normal world."

The problem is that even if the Taliban do agree, for lack of a better term, to be less Taliban-ish — and that's a very big if — many Western donors simply don't trust they'll ultimately keep their end of the deal. Meanwhile, the fate of millions of vulnerable Afghans will continue to hang in the balance.

More from GZERO Media

Those without access to today’s digital world are losing out on opportunities for education and prosperity, not to mention economic stability. A partnership between Mastercard and KaiOS, a technology platform dedicated to advancing digital and financial inclusion, aims to close that gap and pave the way to a global economy that empowers everyone. Read more about the challenges small businesses face in emerging markets and how the partnership can bring the promise of the digital economy to millions of entrepreneurs around the world.

- YouTube

As Election Day approaches, US cybersecurity chief Jen Easterly warns that while America’s voting systems are more secure than ever, the period between voting and certification remains vulnerable, with foreign adversaries poised to exploit any internal divisions during this critical time. Watch her interview with Ian Bremmer on GZERO World.

- YouTube

Listen: On the GZERO World podcast, Ian Bremmer sits down with Jen Easterly, the top US official behind America’s election security infrastructure. As Director of Homeland Security's Center for Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), she is on the frontlines of safeguarding the voting process. In their conversation, Easterly talks about the massive improvements to the nation’s voting systems and emphasizes “with great confidence that election infrastructure has never been more secure.” Yet what worries Easterly is the potential for election meddling and disinformation after voting ends and before certification is complete.

- YouTube

As Americans head to the polls, election officials face the dual challenge of safeguarding both the voting process and public confidence in it, with foreign adversaries and domestic actors ready to exploit any lingering doubts about election integrity. On Ian Explains, Ian Bremmer discusses the roots of Americans’ mistrust in the security of their votes, even though election systems are indeed secure.

Listen: The world is grappling with intense political and humanitarian challenges—raging wars, surging nationalism, and a warming climate, to name a few. Yet, we also stand at the brink of some of the most transformative opportunities in human history. So how do we make sense of the future and what’s next? Ian Bremmer breaks it all down in a special edition of the GZERO World Podcast: The 2024 State of the World.

Workers of the Judiciary in Mexico City, Mexico, on October 15, 2024, protest outside the National Palace in the capital against judicial reform in Mexico. They reject the bill promoted by the former president of Mexico, Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, which proposes the election by popular vote of judges, magistrates, and ministers of the Supreme Court starting in 2025.
(Photo by Gerardo Vieyra/NurPhoto)

Eight out of Mexico’s 11 Supreme Court justices announced late Wednesday that they would resign their positions in opposition to a judicial overhaul that requires them to stand for election, while at the same time Congress passed new legislation that will prohibit legal challenges to constitutional changes.

Footage circulated online on Oct 18, 2024 shows North Korean troops training in Russia.
EYEPRESS via Reuters Connect

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken says North Korean soldiers are expected to deploy in combat against Ukrainians in the coming days, while American Deputy UN Ambassador Robert Wood said 8,000 of Pyongyang’s soldiers are in the Kursk region, which Ukraine has partially occupied.